Men's Apparel Jerseys Hats Novelties Throwback Women's Youth
 
REGISTER FOR PATSFANS.COM

Welcome to PatsFans.com. Do you have an account? If not - please take a moment to register for our forum and experience a much smoother experience with fewer ads, along with no longer having to see this notification. Also learn about how you can receive a free Patriots T-Shirt from the Patriots Official ProShop by CLICKING HERE. Please enjoy your stay here, and Go Pats!


Go Back   New England Patriots Forums - PatsFans.com Patriots Fan Messageboard > PatsFans.com Forums > PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum
Forgot Password? Join PatsFans.com!
Register Blogs FAQ Members List Calendar Arcade Mark Forums Read Chat Room

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-08-2009, 04:48 PM   #1
PatsFans.com Supporter
 
slash83's Avatar
 
KickUps Champion! Snake Champion!
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Turlock, CA
Posts: 2,418
Default Carucci's take on the Seymour deal

Why Patriots acted quickly on Seymour trade; top five teams of '09

He brings up some good points, good read.
__________________
Madden ID for ps3- bradydabest
slash83 is offline   Reply With Quote
FEATURED ADVERTISEMENT
DONATE TO PATSFANS.COM
RECEIVE A FREE PATS T-SHIRT AND SAVE 15% OFF WHEN YOU BUY FROM THE OFFICIAL PROSHOP!

Free T-Shirt & Save 15% Off!
Like Our Site? Please help support our site and server costs by DONATING TO PATSFANS.COM and receive a FREE PATRIOTS T-SHIRT and SAVE 15% off EVERY purchase you make from PatriotsProShop.com. You'll also receive added benefits to your account
including Removing All Ads During Your Experience Here At Our Forum.

NEEDED YEARLY SITE DONATIONS: 345 | CURRENT # OF SUBSCRIBED SUPPORTERS: 206

Updated 2/4/10

Help Us Reach Our Goal!

Old 09-08-2009, 04:58 PM   #2
PatsFans.com Supporter
 
mayoclinic's Avatar
 

Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,950
Default Re: Carucci's take on the Seymour deal

Quote:
Originally Posted by slash83 View Post
Nice read. I agree with a lot of what he says.

The Pats used Ron Brace a lot at DE in the preseason. I wonder whether we will see them move him around a lot the way the Ravens do Haloti Ngata, playing both 4-3 DT, 3-4 NT, and 3-4 DE. He shows much more quickness and penetration on the field than his timed numbers would suggest, and he has nice lateral movement for his size.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result." Albert Einstein
mayoclinic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2009, 04:59 PM   #3
PatsFans.com Supporter
 

Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,083
Default Re: Carucci's take on the Seymour deal

A reasoned perspective on trade that shall remain hypothetical until Sey gets on a plane.
Mack Herron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2009, 05:03 PM   #4
Moderator
 

Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 10,363
Default Re: Carucci's take on the Seymour deal

We shall see. There is a huge difference between preseason reps and the regular season. I look forward to seeing our four expereinced DL's (and one more if Belichick is willing). I expect to see alot of Warren, Willfork, Wright and Green. And when we go to the 4-3, I expect to see a lot of Burgess and Banta-Cain.

The patriots may indeed start or give a major role to rookie DL's this year, but not unless we are forced to do so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mayoclinic View Post
Nice read. I agree with a lot of what he says.

The Pats used Ron Brace a lot at DE in the preseason. I wonder whether we will see them move him around a lot the way the Ravens do Haloti Ngata, playing both 4-3 DT, 3-4 NT, and 3-4 DE. He shows much more quickness and penetration on the field than his timed numbers would suggest, and he has nice lateral movement for his size.
mgteich is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2009, 05:23 PM   #5
Say Whaaaa??
 
Patriot_in_NY's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Western NY
Posts: 5,821
Default Re: Carucci's take on the Seymour deal

Quote:
Originally Posted by mgteich View Post
We shall see. There is a huge difference between preseason reps and the regular season. I look forward to seeing our four expereinced DL's (and one more if Belichick is willing). I expect to see alot of Warren, Willfork, Wright and Green. And when we go to the 4-3, I expect to see a lot of Burgess and Banta-Cain.

The patriots may indeed start or give a major role to rookie DL's this year, but not unless we are forced to do so.
To continue our conversation

Actually, to me, the big ?? (and it is a BIG question mark) is Green. Personally, I think he project's as a much better 4-3 DE then 3-4. He's lighter, faster and more aggressive then Sey, and I think that in a new scheme (that relies heavily on the 4-3), he could be much more of a beast them people give credit for. I think that he may surprise some this year.

BB was just on WEEI and while he did not give away the farm, he surely talked about 2001 and how the defense evolved from a primary 3-4 in games 1-10, to a 4-3 attacking defense in the last part of the season, which was basically DOMINANT. He said that change was predicated on the emergence and leadership of the middle linebacker position (at the time it was Bruschi). All preseason, we've listened to eveyrone talk about new young leadership at that position in Mayo.

Perhaps, in the off season, he had found a similar structure that will allow for a similar set-up. However, it's predicated by leadership at the MLB position and more speed up front. Burgess, Green and Wright represent that. If Brace and Pryor are farther ahead then we think, then coupled with the known Wilfork, Warren, we could be in good shape. Better then I think all of us realize.

It was illuminatiing to say the least. He made it seem that the MLB was the key to the style of D we had in the latter half of 2001, and the rest were just moving parts. That D was pretty good if I remember.

It was good stuff.
Patriot_in_NY is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2009, 05:37 PM   #6
Moderator
 

Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 10,363
Default Re: Carucci's take on the Seymour deal

First, I loved the 2001 season. However, we had the lowest level of talent to ever win a Super Bowl. We have much, much more talent this year.

With regard to the DL, I think Wright will be at least as important as Green. In any case, we have a very reasonable six-man rotation in Warren, Wilfork, Green, Wright, Burgess and Banta-Cain. In reality, five (without Banta-Cain) would probably be sufficient (absent injury) to give us a solid defensive line.

As is normally the case, I don't expect to see much of the rookies unless there are a couple of injuries. Ninkovich is also available at DE.
==========================================

It is the linebacker situation which is still a bit bothersome. Sure, we picked up three DE's who could play OLB, but what is our situation at linebacker? We have Thomas, Woods, Mayo, Guyton and Alexander. This seems a bit thin for a 19 game season, especially inside.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Patriot_in_NY View Post
To continue our conversation

Actually, to me, the big ?? (and it is a BIG question mark) is Green. Personally, I think he project's as a much better 4-3 DE then 3-4. He's lighter, faster and more aggressive then Sey, and I think that in a new scheme (that relies heavily on the 4-3), he could be much more of a beast them people give credit for. I think that he may surprise some this year.

BB was just on WEEI and while he did not give away the farm, he surely talked about 2001 and how the defense evolved from a primary 3-4 in games 1-10, to a 4-3 attacking defense in the last part of the season, which was basically DOMINANT. He said that change was predicated on the emergence and leadership of the middle linebacker position (at the time it was Bruschi). All preseason, we've listened to eveyrone talk about new young leadership at that position in Mayo.

Perhaps, in the off season, he had found a similar structure that will allow for a similar set-up. However, it's predicated by leadership at the MLB position and more speed up front. Burgess, Green and Wright represent that. If Brace and Pryor are farther ahead then we think, then coupled with the known Wilfork, Warren, we could be in good shape. Better then I think all of us realize.

It was illuminatiing to say the least. He made it seem that the MLB was the key to the style of D we had in the latter half of 2001, and the rest were just moving parts. That D was pretty good if I remember.

It was good stuff.
mgteich is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2009, 05:44 PM   #7
PatsFans.com Supporter
 
slash83's Avatar
 
KickUps Champion! Snake Champion!
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Turlock, CA
Posts: 2,418
Default Re: Carucci's take on the Seymour deal

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patriot_in_NY View Post
To continue our conversation

Actually, to me, the big ?? (and it is a BIG question mark) is Green. Personally, I think he project's as a much better 4-3 DE then 3-4. He's lighter, faster and more aggressive then Sey, and I think that in a new scheme (that relies heavily on the 4-3), he could be much more of a beast them people give credit for. I think that he may surprise some this year.

BB was just on WEEI and while he did not give away the farm, he surely talked about 2001 and how the defense evolved from a primary 3-4 in games 1-10, to a 4-3 attacking defense in the last part of the season, which was basically DOMINANT. He said that change was predicated on the emergence and leadership of the middle linebacker position (at the time it was Bruschi). All preseason, we've listened to eveyrone talk about new young leadership at that position in Mayo.

Perhaps, in the off season, he had found a similar structure that will allow for a similar set-up. However, it's predicated by leadership at the MLB position and more speed up front. Burgess, Green and Wright represent that. If Brace and Pryor are farther ahead then we think, then coupled with the known Wilfork, Warren, we could be in good shape. Better then I think all of us realize.

It was illuminatiing to say the least. He made it seem that the MLB was the key to the style of D we had in the latter half of 2001, and the rest were just moving parts. That D was pretty good if I remember.

It was good stuff.
Good stuff man, this defense has the personal to become more of a 43 attacking defense. The big boys in the middle with Wilfork, Warren, and Brace; the speed on the edge with Burgess, Thomas, Green, TBC, Woods, Crable(jk). A stud MLB with Mayo and what should be a vastly improved secondary. Its sad to not have Seymour gone but I am excited to see what this defense could do, the potential to be really good is there.
__________________
Madden ID for ps3- bradydabest
slash83 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2009, 05:52 PM   #8
Moderator
 

Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 10,363
Default Re: Carucci's take on the Seymour deal

To be blunt, unless we are cutting Wilfork, we have a base 3-4 2-gap defense. Wilfork is among the very best 3-4 NT's in the game, the linchpin of the defense.
mgteich is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2009, 05:59 PM   #9
Say Whaaaa??
 
Patriot_in_NY's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Western NY
Posts: 5,821
Default Re: Carucci's take on the Seymour deal

Quote:
Originally Posted by mgteich View Post
First, I loved the 2001 season. However, we had the lowest level of talent to ever win a Super Bowl. We have much, much more talent this year.

With regard to the DL, I think Wright will be at least as important as Green. In any case, we have a very reasonable six-man rotation in Warren, Wilfork, Green, Wright, Burgess and Banta-Cain. In reality, five (without Banta-Cain) would probably be sufficient (absent injury) to give us a solid defensive line.

As is normally the case, I don't expect to see much of the rookies unless there are a couple of injuries. Ninkovich is also available at DE.
==========================================

It is the linebacker situation which is still a bit bothersome. Sure, we picked up three DE's who could play OLB, but what is our situation at linebacker? We have Thomas, Woods, Mayo, Guyton and Alexander. This seems a bit thin for a 19 game season, especially inside.
We're getting closer, as we are agreeing on more stuff then we're disagreeing

True on your first statement, but if we could be dominant with lesser talent, then what could we be with significantly MORE talent. Hmmmmmmm?

We agree, Wright and Green could be lynchpins to this D. Both of them. We also agree that Banta-Cain, while providing great security in the event of injury, is a moving part, albeit, as very good one (in this system, as opposed that last TBC inclination we had ).

Burgess is big in all this too. Provided BETTER THEN AVERAGE speed and attack in passing situation (which we hope will be the norm in 2009, as teams try to keep up with the O).

We also agree at linebacker. A little thinner than I'd like for sure. However, BB once again went out of his way to prop up Guyton. Perhaps his assessment of him differs then a lot of us on here, but we probably have to defer to him on talent evaluation.

It will be interesting to say the least.

One this is for sure, the Offense has the potential to cover a few warts on D.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mgteich View Post
To be blunt, unless we are cutting Wilfork, we have a base 3-4 2-gap defense. Wilfork is among the very best 3-4 NT's in the game, the linchpin of the defense.
Agreed, but he also projects as a very good interior lineman in a 4-3 that will require a couple guys to keep out of the backfield too. It explains why both Vince and Sey were discussed with Oakland. It's one or the other going forward (for signing), but not both.
Patriot_in_NY is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Sponsored Links



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Rumor: Seymour Trade Not A Done Deal? thewaylifeshouldbe PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum 168 09-09-2009 09:31 AM
Rotoworld: Seymour wants new deal from Raiders (Report) Disco Volante PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum 77 09-08-2009 02:45 PM
Peter King: Seymour upset and friend says may not report to Oakland Rob0729 PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum 106 09-07-2009 01:20 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:22 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.2.0

© Copyright 2008 PatsFans.com - The opinions posted in this forum do not necessarily reflect the opinions of PatsFans.com or our staff.
We are not affiliated with the New England Patriots™ or the NFL™. The Photo Used In the header was taken by Ian Logue.

This site is owned and operated by I&K Internet Design Enterprises, LLC


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445